Salacious Crumb Posted July 29, 2016 Share Posted July 29, 2016 57 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said: Holding on to Hamhuis all last season may have cost us top overall pick.... AND another 2nd round pick...... We will never know.. Very poor job by our management. And Vrbata and Corrado. Puhleeeze stop living in the past. Anger is a poison you swallow hoping it kills your enemy. Let it go bro. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oliewud Posted July 29, 2016 Share Posted July 29, 2016 we would be in much better position if benning and linden traded hamhuis and vrbata last summer. Its really unfortunate but what can ya do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nucker 67 Posted July 29, 2016 Share Posted July 29, 2016 4 minutes ago, Salacious Crumb said: And Vrbata and Corrado. Puhleeeze stop living in the past. Anger is a poison you swallow hoping it kills your enemy. Let it go bro. LOL that's great and I agree. Heck, people are still bringing up Neely and Messier. It happened a long time ago, let it go. Let's just look forward to next season, watching the new guys, seeing how our youth improved from last season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadrunner12 Posted July 30, 2016 Share Posted July 30, 2016 17 hours ago, Baggins said: Still in denial despite the video evidence of his involvement..... Just like how you deny the video that states our team was named after Johnny Canucks in honor of our WWII heroes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted July 30, 2016 Share Posted July 30, 2016 1 hour ago, Roadrunner12 said: Just like how you deny the video that states our team was named after Johnny Canucks in honor of our WWII heroes. It was a marketing ploy suggested by a friend of the owner (his bookie lol). Just as the video you mention is a marketing video to sell thoose new JC jerseys. That marketing video saying it was to honor soldiers is a much nicer version of the truth behind naming the team Canucks. The team wasn't named after Johnny Canuck, it was named for the nickname given Canadians solders. The friend (a bookie) suggested Hall name the team Canucks to play on locals sense of patriotism to support the new team on the heels of WWII. Hall liked the idea because it would also appeal to returning veterans who the JC comic books were popular with during the war. It had little to with "honoring" and everything to do with "marketing". What's truly ironic is those that believe the Orca logo was a marketing ploy to promote Orca Bay who sold nothing. There's no point at all in marketing a parent company that has nothing to sell. Yet the teams name itself was the actual marketing ploy to gain support for the team to sell tickets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iceman64 Posted July 30, 2016 Share Posted July 30, 2016 On 7/28/2016 at 6:40 PM, HockeyHarry said: I hate the Killer Whale logo ......they F'd up in the changing from the old Skate to a new one....plain and simple. they should of looked to the old oringal Johnny Canuck logo or Stick in Rink logo. The best sport logos are usually the oldest logos which go timeless. the SeaHawk logo is different it was updated....but still holds the oringal feel. The Canucks 3rd jersey is fine because it still hold the stick in rink look and feel but just up dated. the Video above about Canuck Logos....I DON'T buy Trevor saying the Whale Logo wasn't designed for Orca bay.....that's BS....it definitely was.....pre Orca bay there was zero whale connection to anything....no Orca bay should be no whale. Cant wait til training Camp! at lest SeaHawk camp starts soon to help me through the no hockey days. Also when I buy Canuck stuff I always look for things with non whale logos...mostly I look for the Stick and Rink it's my favorite....both old and new versions. A tad late on replying to a old story but the new orca is by far better that that joke of a yellow jersey with the flying skate (puke gag barf hurl etc...) The stick in the rink has always been the best one, too bad they changed it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted July 30, 2016 Share Posted July 30, 2016 On 2016-07-27 at 4:01 PM, kingofsurrey said: We will see 5 yrs from now who wins this trade. I am thinking Prust will not be adding to his point totals in the next 5 yrs. YOU and Trev better hope that Kassian doesn't make this look like a TERRible trade with 5 solid seasons added to his career. The trade was a total Give a way. Terrible trade by Benning. Time will show it for the very poor deal it was for our club. The only way Montreal wins the trade is if that 5th round pick turns into anything. Montreal showed Kassian the door (as we did) for a rental goalie that was in the AHL earning an NHL salary. Edmonton took Kassian for a salary dump. They traded a financial problem for a problem child. That's Kassian's value. Do you actually believe Montreal "wanted" Kassian? Given his first conversation with their GM ("you're only getting one chance here") when he arrived there I don't. I'd wager Montreal would have been happy trading Prust for the 5th alone. They just wanted to move his contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingofsurrey Posted July 30, 2016 Share Posted July 30, 2016 3 minutes ago, Baggins said: The only way Montreal wins the trade is if that 5th round pick turns into anything. Montreal showed Kassian the door (as we did) for a rental goalie that was in the AHL earning an NHL salary. Edmonton took Kassian for a salary dump. They traded a financial problem for a problem child. That's Kassian's value. Do you actually believe Montreal "wanted" Kassian? Given his first conversation with their GM ("you're only getting one chance here") when he arrived there I don't. I'd wager Montreal would have been happy trading Prust for the 5th alone. They just wanted to move his contract. Basically if Kass goes on for a 10 yr NHL career, the trade will look remembered as the Canucks giving him up for nothing. Montreal fans may end up seeing their trade with Edmonton also be remembered as a fail. I think the Canucks could have held Kass for longer and better value. Montreal on the otherhand had to trade Kass pretty much so i understand why they got so little... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted July 30, 2016 Share Posted July 30, 2016 2 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said: Basically if Kass goes on for a 10 yr NHL career, the trade will look remembered as the Canucks giving him up for nothing. Montreal fans may end up seeing their trade with Edmonton also be remembered as a fail. I think the Canucks could have held Kass for longer and better value. Montreal on the otherhand had to trade Kass pretty much so i understand why they got so little... Here it is a year later and he still has no value. He's not Kane after all. At least Kane provides something on the ice for teams to accept the baggage that comes with him off the ice. Even at that, each team that's had Kane has wanted rid of him. Particularly on a team like ours, adding more and more youth, You don't want a party boy around them to lead them down the wrong path. You're dreaming a little dream of his future when Kassian doesn't provide anything on the ice to risk that in the here and now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingofsurrey Posted July 30, 2016 Share Posted July 30, 2016 Kass provide something in the intimidation factor. Guys were well aware when he was on the ice. Don't kid yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted July 30, 2016 Share Posted July 30, 2016 1 hour ago, kingofsurrey said: Basically if Kass goes on for a 10 yr NHL career, the trade will look remembered as the Canucks giving him up for nothing. Montreal fans may end up seeing their trade with Edmonton also be remembered as a fail. I think the Canucks could have held Kass for longer and better value. Montreal on the otherhand had to trade Kass pretty much so i understand why they got so little... LOL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alfstonker Posted July 30, 2016 Share Posted July 30, 2016 4 hours ago, kingofsurrey said: Basically if Kass goes on for a 10 yr NHL career, the trade will look remembered as the Canucks giving him up for nothing. Montreal fans may end up seeing their trade with Edmonton also be remembered as a fail. I think the Canucks could have held Kass for longer and better value. Montreal on the otherhand had to trade Kass pretty much so i understand why they got so little... No it doesn't because it assumes he would have had a 10 year NHL career here - clearly that was not going to be the case. Kassian was on a downward spiral where he had stopped listening to the people who had the best intentions for him and instead listened to those who fed his sense of being a victim and some kind of martyr. He got into an accident where he was a passenger with two females, one who was only 18 years of age, at 6:30 am on a Sunday morning. It seems that being around guys like the Sedins, Hamhuis, Bieksa etc on a daily basis, did little to help him grow up. "I'm a firm believer in character," Bergevin said, "and that's a lack of character and judgment on his part." Later as an Oiler he said. "What happened to me was negative, but at the same time what came from that was me finally realizing that I needed help. I got it and now it’s just a matter of staying on top of it." So there we have it. Kassian seems to be inferring that only something akin to a car accident and banishment to the AHL would have made him seek help and alter his ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadrunner12 Posted July 30, 2016 Share Posted July 30, 2016 8 hours ago, Baggins said: It was a marketing ploy suggested by a friend of the owner (his bookie lol). Just as the video you mention is a marketing video to sell thoose new JC jerseys. That marketing video saying it was to honor soldiers is a much nicer version of the truth behind naming the team Canucks. The team wasn't named after Johnny Canuck, it was named for the nickname given Canadians solders. The friend (a bookie) suggested Hall name the team Canucks to play on locals sense of patriotism to support the new team on the heels of WWII. Hall liked the idea because it would also appeal to returning veterans who the JC comic books were popular with during the war. It had little to with "honoring" and everything to do with "marketing". What's truly ironic is those that believe the Orca logo was a marketing ploy to promote Orca Bay who sold nothing. There's no point at all in marketing a parent company that has nothing to sell. Yet the teams name itself was the actual marketing ploy to gain support for the team to sell tickets. Take a listen at the .40 mark. If it was a ploy. I'd rather have a "ploy" with history dating back to 1945 with some real significance for our boys to fight and stand for. I'm not saying change to JC but don't confuse the name Canucks with a whale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westcoasting Posted July 31, 2016 Share Posted July 31, 2016 On July 29, 2016 at 2:20 PM, kingofsurrey said: Holding on to Hamhuis all last season may have cost us top overall pick.... AND another 2nd round pick...... We will never know.. Very poor job by our management. At least not as poor as previous management for losing Erhoff and Mitchell for nothing... and then they gave Hamhuis a ntc which ultimately was the problem with trading him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingofsurrey Posted July 31, 2016 Share Posted July 31, 2016 14 hours ago, alfstonker said: Westcoasting.... At least not as poor as previous management for losing Erhoff and Mitchell for nothing... and then they gave Hamhuis a ntc which ultimately was the problem with trading him. True enough. Losing Mitchell cost us a Stanley Cup in my opinion 0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted July 31, 2016 Share Posted July 31, 2016 "losing" Ehrhoff lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scottish_Canuck Posted August 2, 2016 Share Posted August 2, 2016 On 7/29/2016 at 9:30 PM, coastal1 said: Indeed a very valuable skill to have on a team in today's NHL. You can't win without it. Well OK, Pittsburgh and Chicago have won the last 2 Cups without it, but Don Cherry would be the first to say, that's not how it should be. How is having guys who are willing to stick up for their team mates a bad thing?.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred65 Posted August 2, 2016 Share Posted August 2, 2016 2 hours ago, Scottish_Canuck said: How is having guys who are willing to stick up for their team mates a bad thing?.. NHL is all about winning rather than defending honour. Sure you like a player that can play that role but first they have to be able to play the games. John Scotts of the world are gone. One fighter encourages another fighter. The PP might be the difference in a game. In the SC every one remember who won few remember who had a fight IMO. I like a big body but he has to be a player first and fore most Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimberWolf Posted August 2, 2016 Share Posted August 2, 2016 When Cooke hit Savard it was while Lucic was patrolling the ice. Goons don't stop cheap hits any more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggins Posted August 2, 2016 Share Posted August 2, 2016 On 2016-07-30 at 4:52 AM, Roadrunner12 said: Take a listen at the .40 mark. If it was a ploy. I'd rather have a "ploy" with history dating back to 1945 with some real significance for our boys to fight and stand for. I'm not saying change to JC but don't confuse the name Canucks with a whale. I've seen the video before. As I said it's a prettier version of the truth and a video to market the JC jersey. Is saying it was the suggestion of the owners bookie to gain team support through our sense of patriotism after WWII better for selling JC jerseys or is saying the name was to honor our soldiers a better way to sell those jerseys. The truth is the name was suggested by a bookie. "No stranger to the shadier characters of the Vancouver sports milieu, Hall ran into his bookie, Arthur Rennison. Mentioning to Rennison that he was about to buy a hockey team, conversation shifted to the team’s name. Rennison suggested “Canuck,” as in the nickname often used for brave and plucky Canadian soldiers overseas. Hall immediately liked the name’s potential to appeal to Canadian patriotism on multiple levels." http://canucks.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=542443 Marketing ploy or honoring? Who confuses the name Canucks for a whale? Does anybody confuse Canucks for a hockey rink because of the stick in rink jersey? Both are simply a different image in the form of a C. The C representing Canucks. That's a stupid argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.